Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.

Submission Preview

Link to Story

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

Accepted submission by Freeman at 2024-10-22 18:13:26 from the money money money dept.
News

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/t-mobile-att-oppose-unlocking-rule-claim-locked-phones-are-good-for-users/ [arstechnica.com]

T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier's network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. "If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers—not providers—who stand to lose the most," T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing [fcc.gov] with the Federal Communications Commission.
[...]
T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, "consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers."
[...]
T-Mobile and other carriers are responding to a call for public comments that began after the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [fcc.gov] (NPRM) in a 5–0 vote. The FCC is proposing "to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer's handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud."
[...]
T-Mobile's policy [t-mobile.com] says the carrier will only unlock mobile devices on prepaid plans if "at least 365 days... have passed since the device was activated on the T-Mobile network."

"You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said when the FCC proposed the rule. "Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent."
[...]
AT&T enables unlocking [att.com] of paid-off phones after 60 days for postpaid users and after six months for prepaid users. AT&T lodged similar complaints as T-Mobile
[...]
The groups cited the Verizon rules as a model and urged the FCC to require "that device unlocking is truly automatic—that is, unlocked after the requisite time period without any additional actions of the consumer." Carriers should not be allowed to lock phones for longer than 60 days even when a phone is on a financing plan with outstanding payments, the groups' letter said
[...]
In an October 2 filing [fcc.gov], Verizon said it supports "a uniform approach to handset unlocking that allows all wireless providers to lock wireless handsets for a reasonable period of time to limit fraud and to enable device subsidies, followed by automatic unlocking absent evidence of fraud."
[...]
The FCC acknowledged Verizon's argument "that providers may rely on handset locking to sustain their ability to offer handset subsidies and that such subsidies may be particularly important in prepaid environments." But the FCC noted that public interest groups "argue that locked handsets tied to prepaid plans can disadvantage low-income customers most of all since they may not have the resources to switch service providers or purchase new handsets."

The public interest groups also note that unlocked handsets "facilitate a robust secondary market for used devices, providing consumers with more affordable options," the NPRM said.
[...]
The Supreme Court recently overturned [arstechnica.com] the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies like the FCC judicial deference when interpreting ambiguous laws. The end of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to issue regulations without explicit authorization from Congress. This is a potential problem for the FCC in its fight to revive net neutrality rules, which are currently blocked [arstechnica.com] by a court order pending the outcome of litigation.


Original Submission